in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 7/11 OR BUST - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 12/7/09 — Tuesday, December 08, 2009 —  Q Robert, on troops, I want to talk about the U.S. forces. Admiral Mullen a short time ago was making public comments and said that July 2011 is not a deadline. Do you agree with that statement? MR. GIBBS: I think Secretary Gates said that yesterday and then followed that by saying, what that is, is the date by which -- the date on which a transition will begin of our forces handing security responsibility over to the Afghans. Understand, July 2011 comes from the Pentagon and Admiral Mullen. So I think the Pentagon gave to, as part of the process that concludes, gave to the security team a series of ideas that included July 2011 as the transition date. And I'll tell you this -- I talked to the President as recently as this morning on this -- as the Commander-in-Chief, he's clear about what July 2011 means. That is the point in which we will transition handing the security responsibility for Afghanistan to the Afghans, understanding that, as the President said a little under a week ago in West Point, the trajectory with which that withdrawal will happen will be based on, appropriately, conditions on the ground, as has happened in Iraq. Q Then why, if it's clear, did General Jones yesterday say that this is a ramp and the troops start coming off -- MR. GIBBS: That's exactly what I just said. Q Right, but then General Petraeus was asked that and he said it's not a ramp. And he said -- MR. GIBBS: I think it may be a difference in -- no, no, no, I think -- I think, having been in these meetings, I think maybe the word "ramp" has tripped people up, because we talked about the deployment off- or on-ramps, which, again, I -- the ramp I think that General Jones was discussing -- I talked to General Petraeus about this on Air Force One both to and from the West Point speech. I think the ramp that he's referring to, that we're all referring to is, from that July 2011 date that the President has made clear that there will be a transition, there is a ramp at that point where, based on the conditions on the round, will decide the pacing for the thinning of American forces. But, again, Ed, the President has been crystal clear on this. That date of transition in July 2011. [...] MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. Q Thank you. On July 2011 -- first of all, I understand it was a date picked by the Pentagon, but, still, doesn’t -- I think the reason people seem to be struggling with it and why so many people were talking about it on the shows yesterday is it just feels so arbitrary. I mean, what if June 2011 turns out to be a better time, or August turns out to be a better time? Will the President say, doggone it, I said July 2011 and that's it, we're not changing that date. Q Without getting into your arbitrary hypothetical, again, I'd point you to -- this wasn't arbitrarily picked by the Pentagon. This was a decision based on what the strategy that the President had settled on and what had to happen between now and whatever date in order to ramp up the training of the army and the police that comprised the national security force of Afghanistan, at a point in which they're capable of taking over that responsibility. The Pentagon determined that that date was July 2011. Q Which could change if they do better than we think. MR. GIBBS: Well, that would be a nice problem to have. Understand that what happened -- Q But it could change. MR. GIBBS: No, it could happen earlier, sure -- Q But it won't happen later. MR. GIBBS: It won't happen later. The President is quite clear on this. Understand what happened between the meeting by which this date was originally discussed, what happened in the process moving forward was the ramp up of troops actually happened faster than the original chart that the Pentagon had. So what that means is our forces, under the President's mission, will in fact get there faster, therefore be there longer in order to help accomplish the goals necessary for that thinning to take place. That date starts in July of 2011. Q What if the Pentagon comes to him and says, we're not going to be ready July 2011, is he going to say, too bad, that's the date I set. MR. GIBBS: Well, we are going to have assessments throughout this process that will measure us attaining the goals leading up to that point. The President, though, Chip, has been clear: The transition point begins on July 2011 because the Pentagon says that's the point in which the mission will be able to do that. Q That's what they say now. But if they change what they say is the point, then the President would change with them? MR. GIBBS: Well, you're discussing what is being discussed now and I'm telling you the President is clear on July 2011. [...] Q Okay. Picking up on what Admiral Mullen said today, he referenced when he was talking to the Marines at Camp Lejeune about July 2011, he said "There is no exit strategy associated with that." That's a direct quote. Is that accurate, and does that -- MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look through -- Q That's exactly what he said. MR. GIBBS: I don't know what the context of the surrounding -- Q He said -- MR. GIBBS: I understand, I'm sure that's -- I'm sure he said more than that at Camp Lejeune. It's a nice flight to get there. I'm sure he had more than six words to -- Q No, I know. He said, I know you Marines are interested in the 2011 July deadline, and I want to tell you, there is no deadline, which is what Ed asked about. Right after that, the very next phrase: "There is no exit strategy associated with that." That's a direct quote. MR. GIBBS: I don't know what he meant. I can simply -- I can simply, again, reiterate what I did at many points last week and in discussions with the President this week: July 2011 is the transition date, the date -- Q The date when forces begin to come out. MR. GIBBS: -- the date by which our forces will be thinned and responsibility for Afghan security will be the responsibility of the Afghans. Now, again -- Q Can you define "thinned"? What does that mean? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, what I've said and what the President has said -- Q (Inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, that we will begin, based on conditions on the ground, to make decisions about the pacing for that. Q Not whether it begins. MR. GIBBS: I think there have -- not whether it begins. That has been determined. Look, there were erroneous reports the day of the speech that somehow the President was going to say everybody involved would be out of Afghanistan in three years. That wasn't true then and it's not true now. The President doesn't envision, like is happening -- similar to what's happening in Iraq, where there's a drawdown based on what General Odierno says are conditions on the ground. The same will take place in Afghanistan. There's not going to be some drop off of a cliff. But, again -- and I think, quite frankly, look exactly at what was said yesterday by Secretary Gates. That's the date in which the transition will begin. I can't be any clearer than that; the President can't; I doubt Secretary Gates could. [...] Q What happens to the 2011 July date if President Karzai's government simply proves unable to address corruption and they're just unable to train a significant number of soldiers in time? MR. GIBBS: Well, suffice to say we won’t figure that out in June of 2011, that and I think the President addressed a series of steps that would be taken at both that level and underneath the national government level as to how to address the delivery of basic services without corruption. There will be a month-by-month assessment on -- on our training. This isn't going to be a surprise. But what's important is we create an incentive with the government to take the actions that are ultimately necessary to improve their own security situation. The President believed that was important. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought providing those incentives were important. The Pentagon came up with that as a day -- as a date, and the policy and the strategy fit all of that. Q Do you think the Afghans want to do it? MR. GIBBS: I do. They've said that. The proof is in the pudding. And we'll hold them to that, and take whatever steps are necessary to meet those goals if they're unable or unwilling to do so. 7/11 | Afghanistan | Military | Obama Administration | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: 7/11, Afghanistan, Military, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:39:00 PM  President Obama's West Point Speech on Afghanistan, or There And Back Again 12/1/09 — Wednesday, December 02, 2009 —  THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country. To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more. As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people. Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less. This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world. But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron. Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own. Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies. So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them. We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.) As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.) This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Military | Pakistan | President Obama | Speech | War on Terror Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Military, Pakistan, President Obama, Speech, War on Terror >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:03:00 PM Conjoined Twins - White House Press Briefing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 5/6/09 — Wednesday, May 06, 2009 —  Q Madam Secretary, as this plan was being developed, the U.S. believed that a lot of the insurgency issues were going to be in eastern Afghanistan. Obviously the problem has now emerged more heatedly in Pakistan. How has that affected this strategy of the U.S. as this summit came together?SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jake, I think that the wisdom of the approach that we took even before the President was inaugurated has been borne out by the events of the last months. We were determined to see Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, as two countries that were dependent upon each other, influenced each other, and needed to figure out a way forward together. So, if anything, the fast-moving conflict and, frankly, the adaptability of the enemy that we are all fighting has demonstrated clearly the wisdom of that approach. One of the other comments that was made today is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are conjoined twins -- and, in effect, they are. But they were never treated that way. They were kind of one-off: What are we going to do about Afghanistan, and, oh, by the way, what are we going to do about Pakistan? And we have a history there, as you know. We have a history of having been deeply involved and then having withdrawn. And so I think seeing the two countries as connected geographically as they are, and in this common struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies, has given us the flexibility to be able to move more agilely than we did before. Q Madam Secretary, President Zardari said the following yesterday. He said -- on the U.S. relationship -- "I think it needs more effort; I think it needs more understanding on both sides." What is your understanding of his greatest concerns, from his point of view, that you picked up on in these meetings today -- on the U.S. relationship? SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Chuck, I think that's a very fair statement. I think that it does require more understanding on both sides. One size does not fit all. You don't take a strategy from one part of the world and impose it on another part. You don't look at each country just through the prism of the terrorist threat and expect to really understand what's the best way to combat that, and also to begin removing conditions that gave rise to it. And I think that in my conversations with President Zardari -- whom I've known a very long time and was a great admirer and friend of his wife -- if you talk with him, as I have, about what he faced coming into office -- he's been President for less than eight months, and he inherited a very difficult and unmanageable situation. We have a pretty well functioning government. We've changed directions policy-wise, but you don't have to start from scratch -- and so I think a little more understanding on our part about what he confronted. You know, he has successfully navigated some real crises. He made a very brave decision when he first came in to raise the price of wheat. Might not sound like a big deal, but it was a huge political challenge. But by doing so, Pakistan is now self-sufficient in wheat again. You know, you have to look at what he was facing: an economic crisis, a military-terrorist crisis, a legitimacy crisis -- just an enormous array of challenges. And I think if you're more understanding of both the history and the conditions, you not only can perhaps empathize a little bit, but be smarter in the suggestions you make, understanding what the consequences will be. And that's what we are trying to do through this process. Q What are his asks? What are his asks specifically of us? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know. They're very public: more economic aid; more assistance with the military and police in terms of what they need to now go after this new enemy; what I just sort of read off in response to an earlier question about the sort of assistance we're going to offer, from agriculture to the economy to intelligence. That's what they're looking for. Q Madam Secretary, a couple of questions. One, the Zardari government said it wanted time to have this negotiated arrangement in Swat Valley to see what would happen. They've now seen what has happened and are responding militarily. There are some reports in the region that the civilians on the ground now see the government in a different light, and saw that they tried to negotiate, saw what the Taliban did, and there's a backlash against the Taliban. Do you believe that was an inherent wisdom that maybe the U.S. did not detect before in the strategy? And number two, with the sense that the refugee crisis in that area -- now that the Pakistan government has asked civilians to try to leave -- is that going to be something the U.S. and both these nations are going to have to confront in the very near term? SECRETARY CLINTON: I'm sorry, say that again. Q Well, the military's advice being to try to exit parts of the Swat Valley because of a assumed military offensive -- will that create a humanitarian issue that all three of these countries are going to have to deal with in a very near term? SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Major, I'm not going to second-guess the approach that was taken by the government of Pakistan vis-à-vis the Taliban in Swat Valley. Whatever the motive behind it might have been, the reality on the ground soon proved otherwise; that one had to confront the increasing influence and geographic spread of the Taliban. There aren't that many Taliban fighters, but they are so intimidating and they are so ruthless that a very few can control a large swath of territory, which is something that I think everybody learned in watching this unfold. So the other point to remember -- it goes back to Chuck's earlier question -- is there have been areas of Pakistan that have been ungoverned for a very long time. The British Empire did not govern them; no Pakistani government, civilian or military, attempted to govern them; and they were basically left alone, and they left the central government alone -- it was kind of a unspoken agreement. But what nobody bargained for was foreign fighters and foreign money and a foreign ideology that would in some way link up disparate elements within these regions into a network, a syndicate, if you will, of extremist groups. And I think that has changed -- that's another one of the paradigm shifts. You know, you could leave those folks alone and they took care of their own business, but that was fine, we were okay in Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi and other places. But as they became more aggressive, and as they kind of broke out of the traditional model of how they had stayed close to home and basically controlled their own surroundings, that produced a new challenge. And I think that it's part of the change in attitude that we're seeing in the Pakistani military and intelligence services, and in the civilian government. Q And the issue -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we're obviously concerned about that. We're going to watch it and see what we can do to help. MR. GIBBS: She's got a couple of important meetings she's got to get to, so we're going to let her go. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Robert. MR. GIBBS: Thank you for coming. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, everybody. Q Come again. (Laughter.) Afghanistan | Hillary Clinton | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:09:00 PM The Pakistanis Are Nervous - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/5/09 — Tuesday, May 05, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Helen.Q Does the President have congressional approval to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan? And what does he mean that extremists are a direct and general threat to us? Can you explain that? MR. GIBBS: Sure. I presume that the authorization for increased troop activity in Afghanistan goes back to 2000 -- I don't know exactly when the vote was, late 2001. I think the President outlined a strategy to deal with this region and to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, understanding that al Qaeda and its extremist allies operated in these two countries. I think it is clear from their actions that they pose a threat not only to those countries, but also to the United States. And I think we saw that -- Q Are they a threat because we're there intervening in their civil war? Or are they going to come here? MR. GIBBS: I think it was pretty apparent the threat that they posed and the destruction that they ultimately caused in 2001, and that the President will take action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Q Robert, what is the President going to do to reassure Zardari in Pakistan when he comes here tomorrow that this growing opposition on Capitol Hill or sort of reticence opposition on the Hill is from reticence about providing aid to the country -- how is he going to reassure him that he can guarantee the money, that the money is going to come, that Congress will be able to get this done? MR. GIBBS: Flesh out for me the reticence a bit. Q I guess that it seemed to be -- Chairman Obey today saying that he -- on sort of a stricter basis, he's not going to have an -- sort of an unfunded aspect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there's clearly -- the Pakistanis are nervous that they're not going to get the same amount of aid that they've seen in the past. MR. GIBBS: Well, a couple different things. Understand that nobody is more impatient in seeing progress on a strategy to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan than the President of the United States. He has talked about this for several years. These meetings over the course of the next couple of days make good on the promise of being engaged in this region actively. As I said to Helen, there is a shared threat from al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and the best way to confront that threat is through an alliance and cooperation with both of those countries. Q You say al Qaeda, but then is it the Taliban, or do you call al Qaeda -- the Taliban one of al Qaeda's allies in this case? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd say al Qaeda's -- I think I said al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Obviously that denotes al Qaeda, and in specific instances, the Taliban. Q Who Pakistan is, at one hand, at war with; on the other hand, negotiating with. MR. GIBBS: I think they can speak to the danger of doing that. Q Well, I understand it, but I guess, going back to the funding -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- back to your funding, I mean, understand that we organized -- helped organized a donors conference in Japan that brought forward $5 billion worth of assistance to help with this problem in Pakistan. But, Chuck, as I said here yesterday, and I think the President has said on numerous occasions, there shouldn't be and there won't be blank checks; that the President supports the building in of accountability measures to ensure that we're making progress and that if progress isn't made that we'll readjust our strategy. He said that in ordering and conducting the review of our strategy in this region, and in the delivery of that review just a little while ago. Q Disengagement could be a possibility here? That seems to be what some on Capitol Hill are saying -- hey, if progress can't be seen in a year, then why should we keep throwing more money at it; in fact, we should back off. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has made clear the priority in ensuring that we're addressing this extremist threat. Nobody is more impatient than the President in seeing that succeed as quickly as possible, and if, for whatever reason, parts of, or aspects of the strategy aren't succeeding as well as we'd like, then those will be changed in order to succeed. But again, Chuck, we have a threat, the Pakistanis and the Afghanis have a threat that has to be addressed and that's what the President intends to do. Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Congress | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Congress, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:05:00 PM Shirking Responsibility - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/3/09 — Saturday, April 04, 2009 —  Q Does the President think -- General – excuse me, Secretary Gates said something about this over the weekend -- does the President think that leaders of NATO countries need to do more to convince their publics to contribute more troops? And how will he be communicating that?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ll hear some of this, quite frankly, in his speech today in Strasbourg because, as I outlined earlier, I think he will talk about a strong partnership with Europe, but in that partnership, there have to be mutual responsibilities. Q This is the town hall event? MR. GIBBS: Yes. That we have -- in those mutual responsibilities that we have to understand there are real threats out there in this world. You’ll hear the President obviously outline those -- Afghanistan and Pakistan make real the threats that we have -- and that in understanding that this is more than just the concern of the United States but rather the concern of the world, that, yes, the responsibility is there for Europe to step up. Q So we should read that language in the speech today as an effort to motivate and convince the governments to do more? MR. GIBBS: Yes, I mean, I don't -- and I guess I'd phrase it partly this way -- you know, the criticism of the United States for the past few years was a go-it-alone diplomacy, but if you -- Q And you guys made that criticism during the campaign. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I may have read that in a few of your publications or seen it on a couple of your news channels, but I appreciate your simply regurgitating what I say on such an easy basis. But with -- with a partnership, again, there have to be those shared responsibilities and you can't just have -- you can't have just one person bearing the entire load or responsibility in a partnership. Q Does that mean that the United States -- MR. GIBBS: And I think that's the importance, quite frankly, of NATO. I think we've seen that over -- you know, tomorrow we celebrate the 60th anniversary of NATO. The whole idea of that was shared responsibility. Q But does that assume then that the United States' position is that to date the other countries have been shirking that responsibility? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think that will be the tone. I think, again, we've only -- the strategy that we've outlined is only a little less than a week old. And, again, I think our process is to build an agreement on that strategy and then to meet that strategy with the appropriate resources, focusing, as I said, on -- partly on trading and partly on security around these elections. Afghanistan | Air Force One | NATO | Pakistan | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Air Force One, NATO, Pakistan, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:30:00 PM Why No Timeline? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 03/27/09 — Friday, March 27, 2009 —  Q The President really had the focus, in terms of the threat, on Pakistan. And we see the buildup, the troop buildup, for Afghanistan. But what is the U.S. planning to do to go after this threat? If the terrorists are hiding out and currently planning to strike us, what is being done to cut that off?MR. GIBBS: In Pakistan? Q In Pakistan. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into operational details -- Q Is there something being done? MR. GIBBS: Is there something being done -- Q To go after the threat in Pakistan? Because there's $5 billion a year in humanitarian, but nothing -- we haven't heard anything at all about some active engagement to go after that threat if we know the threat is there. MR. GIBBS: I think it would be wise for us not to lay out in front of the world the plan -- that plan of attack. Q Well, I'm not looking for the plans. Is there something that is ongoing to go after that threat? Because he stated the threat is there; they're planning to attack us. MR. GIBBS: I think you can be very assured that we're taking the steps necessary to address the threat and to protect the American people. Q In terms of the timeline, no timeline to extract troops out of Afghanistan. The President I believe in the past has talked about wanting to have a timeline. Why no timeline? Why not sort of set some sort of mark and say, we need to be out by this time? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President did state quite clearly that the policy would be reviewed and evaluated as we go. Obviously if you add in the increase in the number of troops that were added in -- before the President took office, in addition to the 17,000 that the President ordered previously, and the 4,000 trainers today, you're looking at an expansion of roughly 30,000 American troops. So we have important elections coming up in Afghanistan in a deteriorating security situation, and I think -- first of all, I think the President wants to evaluate what -- and the security team want to evaluate what that increase means for the situation in the region. Obviously the announcement today is to build the capacity of the Afghan army to ensure that ultimately that responsibility of rooting out extremism and protecting the democratically elected government can be done by the Afghans. And also the President will look to evaluate the policy as we move forward as we increase our diplomacy, as we increase the number of civilians that are there to do what the President talked about in terms of the delivery of services without corruption, and for developmental aid. And so I think that the President will have said and set forward -- and I think you guys heard last night about a flexible strategy that allows the team to evaluate whether the goals are being met and whether the benchmarks are being met, so that we can determine the progress toward making that region of the world safe and stable. Afghanistan | Obama Administration | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:51:00 PM The Pakistan Connection - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/1/08 — Monday, December 01, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Let me just do Goyal then, and I'll come back. Q Just two quick questions. According to the Indian officials, and also press reports in India, they are saying that there is a clear-cut Pakistan connection because there is a most wanted terrorist, Dawood, they're seeking in Karachi. He's wanted by the U.S. and in India and the international community, and he had a link with this terrorist attack in India. But as far as Dr. Rice visit is concerned, because attacks took place many in the past, and many visits from Washington to New Delhi. But nothing had happened. Pakistan just keeps saying that we are not in war, but then after two months again it happens. MS. PERINO: We have consistently encouraged both India and Pakistan to increase their cooperation, and increase their dialogue. There is something that the State Department had created called the composite dialogue that we have been working on. We have provided technical assistance in order to support confidence-building measures between the two countries, and we will continue to do that. I'm not going to comment or confirm this allegation that you made at the beginning of your statement/question. So we'll just let the investigation continue to play out. Q And one more. MS. PERINO: Okay. Q This is the 9/11 of India. How the President, Washington is taking this seriously after the U.S. 9/11, because what they are saying, we have trained almost 500 people who are ready to strike anywhere in the world, including in the U.S., and they are well trained. MS. PERINO: Well, we -- India has been the victim of terrorist attacks before, but so has Pakistan. One of the things that is different in this attack is that six American citizens were killed. But you'll remember the terrorist attacks on the Parliament building several years ago fostered a lot of tension between Pakistan and India, as well. They've been able to have cooperative conversations, even though they might be tense. That's the kind of diplomatic solution-making that we're trying to foster here. Dana Perino | Goyal | India | Pakistan | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Goyal, India, Pakistan, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:41:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/6/07 (President Bush and President Musharraf) — Tuesday, November 06, 2007 — Q Why is the President dodging a personal phone call to Musharraf? MS. PERINO: The President has had his Secretary of State -- Q I'm asking you directly why doesn't he call him? MS. PERINO: The President feels very strongly that President Musharraf knows exactly how he feels about the situation. Q That isn't the point. MS. PERINO: It is the point. Q Dana, does the White House believe that Musharraf is now a dictator? MS. PERINO: Look, I think that that is -- it's premature to say that. This is a President -- Q Well, why is premature when the First Lady -- MS. PERINO: -- who has worked closely with an ally in the war on terror, President Musharraf. We're doing two things with them: on the one hand, working cooperatively to take the fight to the enemy, to fight against terrorists; and on the other hand, trying to help President Musharraf and the other members of the Pakistani government to move along the path to democracy, because ultimately what's going to help solve this problem is a free society, a democratic society. And yes, President Musharraf, we believe, has made a mistake. We are gravely concerned about the situation. We are calling for an immediate return back to -- Q But wait a minute, why are you calling it a mistake? You seem to be giving Musharraf the benefit of the doubt. MS. PERINO: -- we are calling for an immediate return to civilian rule, and we are in communication with them because we have a lot of cooperative interests. We have a broad relationship, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have very serious counterterrorism operations that are currently underway in Pakistan as well. Q Why did -- the First Lady was very clear in her op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about Burma, Myanmar, saying it's a military dictatorship; what they're doing is wrong. We're not hearing the First Lady, we're not hearing the President being that sharp either on Pakistan. Why do you seem to be giving Musharraf the -- MS. PERINO: And what you have heard -- what you have heard from the President and this administration is that we were made aware that this state of emergency could possibly be declared. We have averted it before, in trying to work cooperatively with President Musharraf. This time the President of Pakistan decided that this is the direction he wanted to go in. We disagree with it. We want him to return to civilian rule. We want the normalcy of the democracy to come back. We're in the early stages of this crisis, and it's going to evolve. We're assessing the situation, and we're reviewing our aid packages. Q But why is it evolving? It's been days that he basically said, no more constitution, and we're going to round up political -- MS. PERINO: We have condemned the action. We have condemned the action. We cannot support any means that are happening outside of the constitution. And that's why we are calling for him to return to the constitution. But remember, this is a country that we want to see democracy. There is a way to get them back on that path. It would be in the best interests of not just the Pakistani people but for people like those of us in the United States, who want to work with an ally in order to fight against terrorists. Q But why should Musharraf believe that you guys are really serious about what you're saying from this podium when the President doesn't actually pick up the phone and call him to let him know personally? That carries a lot more weight than having Condoleezza Rice or somebody else talk to him. MS. PERINO: Well, we disagree. The President has made his points very clear with Musharraf; he's had many meetings with President Musharraf. And Secretary Rice has delivered those messages. And we feel that we are going to keep pressuring them to get back to that rule of law, working with our Ambassador, Anne Patterson, who is in constant contact with President Musharraf. Q It still does not carry the same weight as the President having direct contact with Musharraf -- (inaudible). MS. PERINO: Well, I'll let you -- I'll let that be your opinion. I'll let that be your opinion. Q But what is the tactic? I mean, what is the strategic reason for President Bush not to actually pick up the phone and talk to him? MS. PERINO: I feel confident that the President is being well served and advised by his senior national security team. The decision has been made to have Secretary Rice be the one directed to have this communication. Q Why shouldn't we see this as double standard? I mean, it's not the same standard as applied to Burma. MS. PERINO: I can understand why that question would be asked, but I think everyone has to remember that we are in the early days of a crisis, looking at a country who had decided to try to move down the path to democracy in establishing freedom of the press, civil societies, improving the education system, the public health system, allowing for freedom of expression and assembly. Democracies take time to develop. It is not easy. And this is certainly a setback, and we're -- Q Well, they certainly don't have freedom of the press or assembly at the moment. MS. PERINO: And we have called for a return to it. Burma | Dana Perino | Democracy | First Lady | Helen | Musharraf | Pakistan | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Burma, Dana Perino, Democracy, First Lady, Helen, Musharraf, Pakistan, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:58:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/5/07 (Pakistan and Democracy) — Monday, November 05, 2007 — Q For a long time the President has urged Musharraf to give up his military status, and he has not done so. And you cited a couple of reasons why we should all be mindful of Pakistan's assistance in the war on terror. Is the U.S. willing to accept a certain amount of Musharraf's lack of democracy in order to have his assistance? MS. PERINO: We are not in a give-and-take situation. We want democracy to work. We know that democracy had been working in Pakistan. People have been able to have press freedoms, they've been participating in civil society groups, education had started to reform, the public health system was starting to get better. So I think that if they can return quickly, as Secretary Rice said, return quickly to the rule of law, they can get back on that path to democracy and we won't face that situation, an either/or situation. Q Can you have a partner in the war on terror from a country that does not embrace these democratic institutions? MS. PERINO: I think that the most important thing is for them to get back to their stated goal of having a path to democracy, establishing that free and fair elections would take place in January. You'll hear from the President more. Right now we have a review underway of all of our programs that we are supporting. We have to keep in mind that it is important that we fight the terrorists there for all people, not just those there in Pakistan but for our national security interests as well. And the President has an obligation to protect Americans, to protect American assets. So all of these things are going to have to be taken into consideration as we review the situation. Q Is there any concern from the President that during this time of uncertainty that the work the Pakistani military was doing to try to root out al Qaeda in its border regions would be compromised, or that this could be an opening for bin Laden and his associates? MS. PERINO: I haven't heard that expressed, but I'm sure that since we've been cooperating with the Pakistani military to try to root out the terrorists I don't have any reason to believe that that would end. Q Why hasn't the President called Musharraf, who is, after all, a key ally, personally? Is he reserving that, is there a lack -- MS. PERINO: The President has directed his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to have that direct contact. And if there's more to update later today we will. Condeleezza Rice | Dana Perino | Musharraf | Pakistan | President Bush | Press Briefing | State Department | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Condeleezza Rice, Dana Perino, Musharraf, Pakistan, President Bush, Press Briefing, State Department, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:23:00 PM
|
|
